Which turbo would best work for what I want to gain? - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Engine Performance This section is for discussion on all engine building related questions.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2011, 05:19 AM   #21
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,206
Total Cats: 2,587
Default

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but 280whp for a 2560 isn't "cake" and 320 isn't "easy".
its a mid 200whp turbo. you're making it sound like the 2871r. which is bullshit.


show me all the plots of an easy 280-300whp on that turbo.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:26 AM   #22
MT Pony Underground
iTrader: (6)
 
Nagase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,811
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
I don't know where you're getting your info from, but 280whp for a 2560 isn't "cake" and 320 isn't "easy".
its a mid 200whp turbo. you're making it sound like the 2871r. which is bullshit.


show me all the plots of an easy 280-300whp on that turbo.
Show me all the quotes where I said 320 was easy. All of them.

Oh yeah. There are none. BS on putting words in my mouth.

I'm shooting on a completely optimized setup, to the point of having a manifold designed specifically for my purpose.

On a non-heartbreaking dyno, with a decent IM, NB head, EM, ECU, IC, exhaust, there shouldn't be an issue getting to a 280whp goal. This is as long as you don't have a problem turning up the boost. The map on the turbo maxes at 18.5psi. Paul did 311whp on a 99 head with a lowmount setup. At 17psi.

If you do a search you can find more dynos than you'd wish for 2560's on log manifolds and 12psi putting out 220-250whp. Why? That's what BEGI and FM run. That doesn't mean that's as much power as the turbines can make. Read the compressor chart, it says everything: http://www.himni-racing.com/images/gt2560r_comp_e.jpg
Nagase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:47 AM   #23
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,206
Total Cats: 2,587
Default

Alright then, lets see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagase View Post
Seriously. 2560. There's no reason to go with anything else.
yes there is. more power potential and better topend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagase View Post
Awesome. Put on a good 2560R setup, then go to FlyinMiata and they'll dyno you in at 330whp.
not sure if srs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagase View Post
I have a GT2560R that I'm shooting for 320whp on.

With a good setup, 280whp shouldn't be anything, depending on if the dyno is a killer or not.

And no, never looked into tuners. I have megasquirt, I do my own.
dyno's vary, but unless you're on the most optimistic dyno in the world, you aint hitting an "easy 280whp" unless you're on a nearly maxed out setup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagase View Post
Not sure what you mean by sweet spot, but I'm going for ~18.5 psi.
which is pretty much the max for this turbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagase View Post
Show me all the quotes where I said 320 was easy. All of them.

Oh yeah. There are none. BS on putting words in my mouth.

I'm shooting on a completely optimized setup, to the point of having a manifold designed specifically for my purpose.

On a non-heartbreaking dyno, with a decent IM, NB head, EM, ECU, IC, exhaust, there shouldn't be an issue getting to a 280whp goal. This is as long as you don't have a problem turning up the boost. The map on the turbo maxes at 18.5psi. Paul did 311whp on a 99 head with a lowmount setup. At 17psi.

If you do a search you can find more dynos than you'd wish for 2560's on log manifolds and 12psi putting out 220-250whp. Why? That's what BEGI and FM run. That doesn't mean that's as much power as the turbines can make. Read the compressor chart, it says everything: http://www.himni-racing.com/images/gt2560r_comp_e.jpg
I'm not putting words into your mouth, but dyno's have a funny way of humbling expectations and exaggerations.
Paul made 300 on a damn good setup and at high (for that turbo) boost.

absurdflow hot parts + all other supporting mods + 2560 at nearly max boost is an "easy" 280whp?


How about you make your EASY 320whp on a 2560 on a mustang then run your mouth.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:56 AM   #24
MT Pony Underground
iTrader: (6)
 
Nagase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,811
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
yes there is. more power potential and better topend.
His goal is 280whp. If he wants to make more power than that, I'm not reading his mind. I'm answering the question presented. You're making up benefits that don't exist in what was asked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
no
Wow, how can I argue with such... well. There's nothing at all here. Moving on. FM dynoed a 2560R at 12psi at 291whp. TWELVE. TWELVE. Oh my god is your ignorance of what FM's dyno does ever showing here. Try reading: http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread...highlight=2560

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
dyno's vary, but unless you're on the most optimistic dyno in the world, you aint hitting an "easy 280whp" unless you're on a nearly maxed out setup
Did you completely ignore what I wrote about what setup would be wanted to make this easy? Your argument makes no sense if you've actually read the optimization I suggested for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
which is pretty much the max for this turbo.
Obviously you don't know how to read compressor maps.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
I'm not putting words into your mouth dickfuck, but dyno's have a funny way of humbling expectations and exaggerations.
Paul made 300 on a damn good setup and at high (for that turbo) boost.
Your insults are childish. Paul made it on a good setup. Wow. Way to agree with me. Good job there. Almost max boost for the turbo. Yeah. I already said that. Try to keep up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
absurdflow hot parts + all other supporting mods + 2560 at nearly max boost is an "easy" 280whp?
No, that was a solid 311whp at non-max PSI. So yes, it would be an easy 280... because you just turn down the pressure. That's pretty easy to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
How about you make your 320whp then run your mouth.
How about you learn to see the difference between 'running one's mouth' and stating facts? While you're at it, learn what flow converts to for whp. This is basic information.

Less insults. More learning.
Nagase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:08 AM   #25
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,206
Total Cats: 2,587
Default

LMAO ******* noob *****
All of a sudden you're the resident turbo expert?

so paul made 300 on 18psi and fm made 290 on 12 psi?

O RLY?

How about you make some numbers and then talk? Many can read a compressor map and claim to know **** about a turbo. Then they hit the dyno and end up with way less power. WHAT HAPPENED????? hurr durr

Oh and he said he might want 295. Meaning he might want 320....etc.
Meaning he wants headroom.

Now why don't you pull your head out of your own *** and maybe not nutswing the 2560 so hard. Its a great turbo and I am not hating on it by any means, but your exaggerations are just silly.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:12 AM   #26
MT Pony Underground
iTrader: (6)
 
Nagase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,811
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
so paul made 300 on 18psi and fm made 290 on 12 psi?

O RLY?
Are you drunk? I mean, this is the only way I would understand this complete lack of reading comprehension. I said that FM's dyno is very "helpful" to making high numbers. This is a known fact. On this forum and m.net. I even linked you to show how high the numbers were.

Wow, I don't know how to be more blunt with explaining this to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
How about you make some numbers and then talk? Many can read a compressor map and claim to know **** about a turbo.
And LOL at

My making numbers or not doesn't make what I say true or false. It just means I have a car that has a certain amount of horsepower.

You're insulting and not doing a single ounce of research. I might as well be arguing with SocalPat right now.

EDIT: This is what one does when one has to add information to a post. Those reading after this will notice that what I quoted and what is showing in 18psi's posts are not matching. They've been edited. The things he said that I didn't touch on or quote were all added.

As far as being a 'noob *****', I don't think that bears a response.

As far as headroom, he gave a range. He wants maximum response. The 2560 will give him the most response in that range. Simple. The next step up requires more throttle, as per Sav's posts about feeding in throttle to spool up the turbo for corner exit.

18psi keeps claiming I said easy somewhere. I didn't. Nor did I say mustang dyno. I specifically excluded 'heartbreak' dynos earlier in the thread, actually, so that doesn't make any sense either.

The 'no' was changed to 'not sure if srs'. Not sure what to say there. FM's dyno is legendarily high. That can be researched here and on m.net.
Nagase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:16 AM   #27
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,206
Total Cats: 2,587
Default

There's a lot more than just compressor map that dictates what a car will make. You obviously can't grasp that fact.

No amount of condescending posts or petty insults which you've added to every post changes that.

Oh and repeating that I'm insulting you while doing the same is a bitch move. Go take a midol, change the tampon, and come back when you're ready to show me how you made an easy 320whp on a 2560.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:25 AM   #28
MT Pony Underground
iTrader: (6)
 
Nagase's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,811
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
There's a lot more than just compressor map that dictates what a car will make. You obviously can't grasp that fact.
That doesn't make any sense. I've already said a laundry list of upgrades needed to optimize the turbo's potential flow. Again, you're ignoring that key piece of data that I've not only said previously, but also pointed out the last time you brought this up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
No amount of condescending posts or petty insults which you've added to every post changes that.
It's condescending because it doesn't make any sense. You're coming across as drunk, and you're obviously not doing any research. Otherwise you'd have been able to verify, for example, what I said about FM's dyno in about 5 minutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
Oh and repeating that I'm insulting you while doing the same is a bitch move. Go take a midol, change the tampon, and come back when you're ready to show me how you made an easy 320whp on a 2560.
I'm remaining calm. I really couldn't care less about what you care to say, or how fast you think my car is. Nor did I ever say easy. For the fourth time. It's like talking to a brick wall here. You're repeating the same things I didn't say, over and over again. You're ignoring what I did say, repeatedly.

EDIT: If anyone (OP) is wanting a little more history on FM's dyno, here's 301whp on 11psi on a 2560. If you want to make bragging numbers, go there. http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread...highlight=2560

Last edited by Nagase; 03-12-2011 at 06:45 AM.
Nagase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 12:43 PM   #29
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,868
Total Cats: 66
Default

Hey 18poundingcocks...the "330whp at FM" is a stab at FM's dyno numbers that have always been questionable. It doesn't mean he is serious about 330rwhp. There has always been a ton of debate at to FM's correction numbers and whatnot. Clearly you are out of the loop on this subject and are taking it too seriously. Go take a protien shot and relax.


I'm running the 2560 and have no problem with it. I do plan on turning up the wick to see what I can get out of it at 15-16psi. But remember that things like CR and having VVT will effect rwhp numbers. I know there is a local guy here with a 2560R that made 281rwhp on a local and respectable dyno on a built engine at 9:1 compression. I don't think 280-290rwhp on a 2560R is that hard on a good tune. I would imagine that a different intake manifold and/or some cams would make that much easier.

I'm with Joe and recommend the 2560R as well since you can get decent numbers from it, have earlier spool than the other turbos and not have enough headroom to get carried away and risk blowing your **** up (but then again, look at Jared on his stock block). As much as I would like to have a 2860RS/2871 and say I have a 300rwhp dyno, I know I don't really need it right now and shouldn't be trying to do that on a stock 02 engine without having another one ready to go in.
Doppelgänger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 02:05 PM   #30
Newb
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Total Cats: 0
Default

Alrighty. Well, from everything I am seeing, it really comes down mostly to a few things...

1.) Which is more important to me? Making my minimum HP goal, or having a SLIGHTLY earlier spool up time (from all of the spool threads/comparos I saw, the 2860s and 2871s are only losing 300-500 rpm of spool to the 2560s)

2.) Whether I am willing to completely replace everything that I already have (that works fine, but perhaps not optimally, being an FM log manifold and FM downpipe) if necessary to reach my HP goals... Which doing such could drop the spool time on a 2860 or 2871 (or yes even the BW 6258 rated at ~225-400hp)

3.) Whether I am at a level that I could GET the absolute maximum out of a 2560 in order to reach my goals (I did state I am a bit new to this, but trying to learn)

4.) Whether or not I think that I might want some headroom in the future to increase it a bit without having to start over again...

So, I'll have to figure out those things for certain, but I am definitely of a mind right now that I would rather find myself nicely in the middle of, or even closer to the bottom of a compressor map than I would pushed up against the top unable to accomplish my goal without having to replace a large portion of my setup.

All of that puts me back to considering between the GT2860RS, the GT2871R, and the BW EFL 6258 (would really love to see a spool chart or result from somebody with one, especially looking at that compressor map that actually starts at almost the same place as a 2560). Thank you for all of your advice and education though.

Last edited by bdohaney; 03-12-2011 at 02:51 PM.
bdohaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 03:30 PM   #31
Newb
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Total Cats: 0
Default

Ok, scratch the BW EFL... Would take too much to get it to fit in where my current Churbo is sitting. It really looks like it is between the 2860RS and the 2871R...

With me leaning towards the 2860RS...
bdohaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 04:17 PM   #32
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
TurboTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,485
Total Cats: 248
Default

Paul made 304rwhp at 14psi, 311 at 17. This tells you with his setup the 2560 wasn't good for much more than 300. 7hp for 3psi is not where you want to be on a turbo (unless you are turboing a 5hp briggs). Paul's setup was Absurdflow centered/low, 99 head on 94 block, old style begi cast intake mani, 70mm mustang TB, 3" exhaust w/cat & resonator, Megasquirt, 93 octane, dynojet, etc.

I'd love to see 320rwhp out of a 2560 on pump gas but I will guess it is impossible without more rpm and E85 perhaps.
TurboTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:39 PM   #33
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 114
Total Cats: 0
Default

Given, I have NOT looked at the compressor maps and may be grossly oversimplifying, what's wrong with the EFR 6255? It's a T25 flange single scroll 0.64 A/R turbine housing, with a 62mm ~64 trim (49.5mm inducer) compressor wheel and a 55mm turbine compared to the 2560 which is of course a 60mm CW (60 trim) and a 53mm turbine in a 0.64 A/R housing. It's also just a way more baller turbo, lightweight Gamma TiAl turbine and ceramic bearings, seems like it'd work well?

edit- for some reason I was thinking the GT28 turbine was 58mm (probably from all the furious EFR 6258 masturbation...) but it's actually 53.9mm... which means instead of it being a nice "midpoint" maybe the 55mm turbine is a little big? the GT30 turbine is 60mm just for reference...
NickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:48 PM   #34
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (24)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,074
Total Cats: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickC View Post
Given, I have NOT looked at the compressor maps and may be grossly oversimplifying, what's wrong with the EFR 6255? It's a T25 flange single scroll 0.64 A/R turbine housing, with a 62mm ~64 trim (49.5mm inducer) compressor wheel and a 55mm turbine compared to the 2560 which is of course a 60mm CW (60 trim) and a 53mm turbine in a 0.64 A/R housing. It's also just a way more baller turbo, lightweight Gamma TiAl turbine and ceramic bearings, seems like it'd work well?
The problem is finding one and shelling out nearly 1500 bucks.
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 05:58 PM   #35
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 114
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
The problem is finding one and shelling out nearly 1500 bucks.
Mleh, money/time is trivial to real miata man haha.

Nagase was saying the 6255 was useless though and had no better response than the 6258. I just dont understand why? The 2560 and 2860 have the same size compressor wheels and the 2560 turbine is only .9mm smaller than the 2860 and apparently it's significantly more responsive.

edit- although maybe he was referencing the 0.92 a/r twin scroll 58mm housing as opposed to the 0.64/0.65 a/r single scroll 58mm housing? even so, I just can't see, may be blinded by ignorance?, there not being a significant increase in response using the 0.64/0.65 a/r 55mm setup
NickC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:28 PM   #36
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,206
Total Cats: 2,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboTim View Post
Paul made 304rwhp at 14psi, 311 at 17. This tells you with his setup the 2560 wasn't good for much more than 300. 7hp for 3psi is not where you want to be on a turbo (unless you are turboing a 5hp briggs). Paul's setup was Absurdflow centered/low, 99 head on 94 block, old style begi cast intake mani, 70mm mustang TB, 3" exhaust w/cat & resonator, Megasquirt, 93 octane, dynojet, etc.

I'd love to see 320rwhp out of a 2560 on pump gas but I will guess it is impossible without more rpm and E85 perhaps.
THANK YOU

Pretty much what I was trying to say before little bitch started crying and posting paragraphs trying to prove his false claims.
In the end, everyone knows a 2560 is a mid 200 whp turbo able to hit 300 at damn near peak pressure/efficiency and not much more can be pushed out of it.

Nagase, I didn't edit jack **** you little bitch, go cry/nutswing elsewhere. If you can't find where you said "easy", I quoted it for you. Wipe the *** out of your eyes and take a look.

Dopple, I may have misunderstood his sarcasm about FM's high reading dyno, sue me, that still doesn't affect any of my other posts about the 2560 and how little bitch is exaggerating and needs to go nutswing elsewhere.

Bottom line: the 2560 is a GREAT turbo as many here have experienced first hand. It does have great response and is well matched for a BP looking for mid 200's power level, even a bit more. What its NOT is a 300whp turbo, and everyone here besides *********** already knows that.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 07:10 PM   #37
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (24)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,074
Total Cats: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickC View Post
Mleh, money/time is trivial to real miata man haha.

Nagase was saying the 6255 was useless though and had no better response than the 6258. I just dont understand why? The 2560 and 2860 have the same size compressor wheels and the 2560 turbine is only .9mm smaller than the 2860 and apparently it's significantly more responsive.

edit- although maybe he was referencing the 0.92 a/r twin scroll 58mm housing as opposed to the 0.64/0.65 a/r single scroll 58mm housing? even so, I just can't see, may be blinded by ignorance?, there not being a significant increase in response using the 0.64/0.65 a/r 55mm setup
The thing is that we don't know how these turbos will react. They are still brand new and no one can report with positive data on how they will respond.

It's unfair to try and compare them to Garrett GT turbos just based on physical size, wheel sizes, etc...because they are built so differently.

I am in the same boat as you, I really, really want to see some results on a B6 and BP. There is a lot riding on these new turbos. Geoff @ Full-Race said, "It will take a act of god to one up these turbos." (not a exact qoute, but you get the idea).

Making a claim of horse power goes is not something you should do until you actually start making near that power. You may get bored OR you may want the boost turned down, you won't know until you get there and start experimenting.

If you could give us a run down of you current setup or what you want to use/build, etc... That would be a serious help.

We are having a serious explosion of miata fabrication recently. People are now running one off setups left and right, instead of the normal off the shelf units. So that will make a big difference in what power you could/would/should make with a given turbocharger.

Good luck and keep us updated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
Wah wah wah my chinacharger sucks boo hoo


LOL @ you calling some one a nutswinger.
Seriously, you need to relax. There was no false information stated/posted (except for the FM dyno, lol, that made me ROFL ) Plenty of people run off the shelf FM/Begi parts and make 260-285+whp easy, it's a fact.
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 07:23 PM   #38
Newb
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Total Cats: 0
Default

LOL I am not crying about my churbo, just want to (and will shortly be able to) replace it.

Leaning more and more towards the 2871, probably with either the 48 trim or 52 trim and .64 A/R housing...

Should spool well, and will give me a decent bit of room to go bigger should I choose to later do so.
bdohaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 07:28 PM   #39
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (24)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,074
Total Cats: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdohaney View Post
LOL I am not crying about my churbo, just want to (and will shortly be able to) replace it.

Leaning more and more towards the 2871, probably with either the 48 trim or 52 trim and .64 A/R housing...

Should spool well, and will give me a decent bit of room to go bigger should I choose to later do so.
I was referring to the forum nutswinger.

2871 would be what I would run(if I was sticking with a T2 foot print), just because I KNOW I would get tired of anything less than 300whp.

If you shop around you can find them for right under a grand, it's a good deal for a great turbo and you will have plenty of head room.
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 07:44 PM   #40
Newb
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
I was referring to the forum nutswinger.

2871 would be what I would run(if I was sticking with a T2 foot print), just because I KNOW I would get tired of anything less than 300whp.

If you shop around you can find them for right under a grand, it's a good deal for a great turbo and you will have plenty of head room.
Yup. That is just about exactly what I was thinking. I think that the 2871 best covers the whole range of power I would want to produce from about 240-350...

So, the next questions are, which trim and which A/R housing? lol
bdohaney is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
91 1.6l turbo complete part out. Tony the Tiger Miata parts for sale/trade 63 12-29-2016 03:23 AM
MS PNP requires reading and following directions??? satisfied MEGAsquirt 141 10-06-2015 11:44 AM
Anything To Gain from Using Piggyback on N/A car? 2000SE ECUs and Tuning 5 09-08-2015 12:30 PM
Hi turbo kitten nelson8708 Meet and Greet 11 09-06-2015 10:49 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.